BoxRec

Posted: **01 Oct 2021, 09:48**

garethhop wrote: ↑01 Oct 2021, 08:59 Just watching a Wallin interview for his fight with Whyte.

They've got a rematch clause.

What a fornicating joke all this is. Go on Wallin lad.

Even f*cking Dillian Whyte, who gets wobbled if not KOed in every fight, has a rematch clause in every bout. That's what side A means today.

Posted: **01 Oct 2021, 10:02**

garethhop wrote: ↑01 Oct 2021, 09:27
maverick23 wrote: ↑01 Oct 2021, 09:13
garethhop wrote: ↑01 Oct 2021, 08:59 Just watching a Wallin interview for his fight with Whyte.

They've got a rematch clause.

What a fornicating joke all this is. Go on Wallin lad.
Wallin didn’t have to sign the deal. If he was dead set against it then he could have took another fight or taken less money for this one.

Now he’ll be well paid for the Whyte fight and will likely be very paid in the rematch in case he beats Whyte.
And of course as a fan, that's exactly what you'll want if Wallin beats Whyte. A rematch. No, of course it isn't. You'd want Whyte to get back in line and Wallin to get a chance to fight up.

Full on DAZN/Hearn mouthpiece you are pal.

What’s the fact this having a rematch clause got to do with me being a DAZN/Hearn mouthpiece?! Just because I think differently to you on several things doesn’t mean I only like DAZN/Matchroom. I treat them as as I do anyone else - by giving an honest opinion. Warren’s had a rematch clause for Yarde against Arthur which I was fine with too.

If the fight’s good then I’d like to see a rematch. If it’s not then I won’t. I don’t have much of an issue with there being an AJ/Usyk rematch because I’m intrigued to see if AJ can improve or whether Usyk can stop him. I’d hope we don’t have another shite undercard though.

It’s the economics of boxing. I didn’t have any issue with Klitschko’s opponents signing rematch clauses or Lennox Lewis opponents. When one fighter brings far more to a fight commercially than another then it would stupid not to ask for certain conditions. They don’t have to take it and if mandatory they can go to purse bids to avoid a rematch clause.

Weirdly I wish some other fights would have rematch clauses - like Loma/Lopez. Instead Lopez is being messed around and Loma isn’t having particularly interesting fights. Granted if Lopez would have fought Davis/Haney/Garcia next then happy days but that wasn’t the case.

Whyte/Wallin’s a good fight, both have entertaining styles so, aslong as the first fight is good and competitive, I’m fine with a rematch - as Wallin has to be.

Posted: **01 Oct 2021, 17:19**

garethhop wrote: ↑01 Oct 2021, 09:27
maverick23 wrote: ↑01 Oct 2021, 09:13
garethhop wrote: ↑01 Oct 2021, 08:59 Just watching a Wallin interview for his fight with Whyte.

They've got a rematch clause.

What a fornicating joke all this is. Go on Wallin lad.
Wallin didn’t have to sign the deal. If he was dead set against it then he could have took another fight or taken less money for this one.

Now he’ll be well paid for the Whyte fight and will likely be very paid in the rematch in case he beats Whyte.
And of course as a fan, that's exactly what you'll want if Wallin beats Whyte. A rematch. No, of course it isn't. You'd want Whyte to get back in line and Wallin to get a chance to fight up.

Full on DAZN/Hearn mouthpiece you are pal.

Im fine with a rematch if whyte loses. but it shouldent be allowed to be contracted in.

Say wallin beats whyte. well then he is interim champ, mando, on the up. he should be able to explore his options, and one of those options is a rematch with whyte.

Its fucked up that boxing has now just accepted for a large part that you will be forced to win 2-0 or else you lose, and you gotta do it against the judges.. and if you dont accept those terms people just fight someone else and youll just waste away.

Posted: **01 Oct 2021, 17:30**

gregregegg wrote: ↑01 Oct 2021, 17:19
garethhop wrote: ↑01 Oct 2021, 09:27
maverick23 wrote: ↑01 Oct 2021, 09:13

Wallin didn’t have to sign the deal. If he was dead set against it then he could have took another fight or taken less money for this one.

Now he’ll be well paid for the Whyte fight and will likely be very paid in the rematch in case he beats Whyte.
And of course as a fan, that's exactly what you'll want if Wallin beats Whyte. A rematch. No, of course it isn't. You'd want Whyte to get back in line and Wallin to get a chance to fight up.

Full on DAZN/Hearn mouthpiece you are pal.
Im fine with a rematch if whyte loses. but it shouldent be allowed to be contracted in.

Say wallin beats whyte. well then he is interim champ, mando, on the up. he should be able to explore his options, and one of those options is a rematch with whyte.

Its fucked up that boxing has now just accepted for a large part that you will be forced to win 2-0 or else you lose, and you gotta do it against the judges.. and if you dont accept those terms people just fight someone else and youll just waste away.

Bang on. And people saying ‘yeah well that’s the way the game is economically’ etc etc

Bollocks.

Posted: **02 Oct 2021, 03:25**

garethhop wrote: ↑01 Oct 2021, 17:30
gregregegg wrote: ↑01 Oct 2021, 17:19
garethhop wrote: ↑01 Oct 2021, 09:27

And of course as a fan, that's exactly what you'll want if Wallin beats Whyte. A rematch. No, of course it isn't. You'd want Whyte to get back in line and Wallin to get a chance to fight up.

Full on DAZN/Hearn mouthpiece you are pal.
Im fine with a rematch if whyte loses. but it shouldent be allowed to be contracted in.

Say wallin beats whyte. well then he is interim champ, mando, on the up. he should be able to explore his options, and one of those options is a rematch with whyte.

Its fucked up that boxing has now just accepted for a large part that you will be forced to win 2-0 or else you lose, and you gotta do it against the judges.. and if you dont accept those terms people just fight someone else and youll just waste away.
Bang on. And people saying ‘yeah well that’s the way the game is economically’ etc etc

Bollocks.

It’s not bollocks though - it’s why it happens. You may rather it didn’t happen but the managers/promoters have a legal duty to act in the best interest of the boxers they work for and sometimes that will mean requesting a rematch.

Posted: **02 Oct 2021, 03:43**

gregregegg wrote: ↑01 Oct 2021, 17:19
garethhop wrote: ↑01 Oct 2021, 09:27
maverick23 wrote: ↑01 Oct 2021, 09:13

Wallin didn’t have to sign the deal. If he was dead set against it then he could have took another fight or taken less money for this one.

Now he’ll be well paid for the Whyte fight and will likely be very paid in the rematch in case he beats Whyte.
And of course as a fan, that's exactly what you'll want if Wallin beats Whyte. A rematch. No, of course it isn't. You'd want Whyte to get back in line and Wallin to get a chance to fight up.

Full on DAZN/Hearn mouthpiece you are pal.
Im fine with a rematch if whyte loses. but it shouldent be allowed to be contracted in.

Say wallin beats whyte. well then he is interim champ, mando, on the up. he should be able to explore his options, and one of those options is a rematch with whyte.

Its fucked up that boxing has now just accepted for a large part that you will be forced to win 2-0 or else you lose, and you gotta do it against the judges.. and if you dont accept those terms people just fight someone else and youll just waste away.

It’s not like contracted rematches are a new thing. They’ve been happening for decades but I think there should be some caveats when it comes to them.

The first being a time limit. I’d you take the Yarde/Arthur example and Helenius/Kownacki it’s taking 12 months and 19 months respectively to sort the rematch. That’s certainly not fair on Helenius. It should be their next fight (so we don’t have the waste of time interim fights in the case of Yarde/Arthur) and should be within a reasonable time frame i.e. a max of 6 months. Same with Wilder/Fury.

I think it would also help if there’s some sort of independent adjudication whereby if one fighter doesn’t want the rematch I.e. the winner of the first fight, then they rule whether a rematch is worth it. The majority of times I don’t think it’ll be an issue but when the fight is so conclusive (Fury/Wilder 2) there isn’t much relative demand for a rematch, it may help if someone could rule on it and say ‘Nope….it’s not happening’.

Going back to Wallin/Whyte I’m sure Wallin has other options - he won on a PBC show in his last fight, is a good heavyweight but he’s not even ranked in the WBC 15 (which amazing considering some of the fighters that are). He’ll be well paid and will be WBC interim/number 1 contender if he wins both fights. I’m sure he doesn’t have much issue with it and as long as the first fight is competitive and the rematch happens quickly then neither do I.

Posted: **02 Oct 2021, 04:43**

maverick23 wrote: ↑02 Oct 2021, 03:43
gregregegg wrote: ↑01 Oct 2021, 17:19
garethhop wrote: ↑01 Oct 2021, 09:27

And of course as a fan, that's exactly what you'll want if Wallin beats Whyte. A rematch. No, of course it isn't. You'd want Whyte to get back in line and Wallin to get a chance to fight up.

Full on DAZN/Hearn mouthpiece you are pal.
Im fine with a rematch if whyte loses. but it shouldent be allowed to be contracted in.

Say wallin beats whyte. well then he is interim champ, mando, on the up. he should be able to explore his options, and one of those options is a rematch with whyte.

Its fucked up that boxing has now just accepted for a large part that you will be forced to win 2-0 or else you lose, and you gotta do it against the judges.. and if you dont accept those terms people just fight someone else and youll just waste away.
It’s not like contracted rematches are a new thing. They’ve been happening for decades but I think there should be some caveats when it comes to them.

The first being a time limit. I’d you take the Yarde/Arthur example and Helenius/Kownacki it’s taking 12 months and 19 months respectively to sort the rematch. That’s certainly not fair on Helenius. It should be their next fight (so we don’t have the waste of time interim fights in the case of Yarde/Arthur) and should be within a reasonable time frame i.e. a max of 6 months. Same with Wilder/Fury.

I think it would also help if there’s some sort of independent adjudication whereby if one fighter doesn’t want the rematch I.e. the winner of the first fight, then they rule whether a rematch is worth it. The majority of times I don’t think it’ll be an issue but when the fight is so conclusive (Fury/Wilder 2) there isn’t much relative demand for a rematch, it may help if someone could rule on it and say ‘Nope….it’s not happening’.

Going back to Wallin/Whyte I’m sure Wallin has other options - he won on a PBC show in his last fight, is a good heavyweight but he’s not even ranked in the WBC 15 (which amazing considering some of the fighters that are). He’ll be well paid and will be WBC interim/number 1 contender if he wins both fights. I’m sure he doesn’t have much issue with it and as long as the first fight is competitive and the rematch happens quickly then neither do I.

Just cause they have always existed dosent mean they shouldn’t ditch em. Gives too much power to the big names.

For title fights with a decision that is controversial then I think the gov body’s should be able to mandate a rematch (which wouldent legaly force a rematch but if you didn’t you would drop the belt /your ranking )

Posted: **02 Oct 2021, 05:03**

Campbell Hatton should give Martinez an immediate rematch.Only just watched the fight from last weekend,jesus that was criminal.

Posted: **02 Oct 2021, 05:21**

gregregegg wrote: ↑02 Oct 2021, 04:43
maverick23 wrote: ↑02 Oct 2021, 03:43
gregregegg wrote: ↑01 Oct 2021, 17:19

Im fine with a rematch if whyte loses. but it shouldent be allowed to be contracted in.

Say wallin beats whyte. well then he is interim champ, mando, on the up. he should be able to explore his options, and one of those options is a rematch with whyte.

Its fucked up that boxing has now just accepted for a large part that you will be forced to win 2-0 or else you lose, and you gotta do it against the judges.. and if you dont accept those terms people just fight someone else and youll just waste away.
It’s not like contracted rematches are a new thing. They’ve been happening for decades but I think there should be some caveats when it comes to them.

The first being a time limit. I’d you take the Yarde/Arthur example and Helenius/Kownacki it’s taking 12 months and 19 months respectively to sort the rematch. That’s certainly not fair on Helenius. It should be their next fight (so we don’t have the waste of time interim fights in the case of Yarde/Arthur) and should be within a reasonable time frame i.e. a max of 6 months. Same with Wilder/Fury.

I think it would also help if there’s some sort of independent adjudication whereby if one fighter doesn’t want the rematch I.e. the winner of the first fight, then they rule whether a rematch is worth it. The majority of times I don’t think it’ll be an issue but when the fight is so conclusive (Fury/Wilder 2) there isn’t much relative demand for a rematch, it may help if someone could rule on it and say ‘Nope….it’s not happening’.

Going back to Wallin/Whyte I’m sure Wallin has other options - he won on a PBC show in his last fight, is a good heavyweight but he’s not even ranked in the WBC 15 (which amazing considering some of the fighters that are). He’ll be well paid and will be WBC interim/number 1 contender if he wins both fights. I’m sure he doesn’t have much issue with it and as long as the first fight is competitive and the rematch happens quickly then neither do I.
Just cause they have always existed dosent mean they shouldn’t ditch em. Gives too much power to the big names.

For title fights with a decision that is controversial then I think the gov body’s should be able to mandate a rematch (which wouldent legaly force a rematch but if you didn’t you would drop the belt /your ranking )

They won’t be ditched. It gives power to the big names but they’re big names because they bring a lot of money to the table.

I’m trying to think of some contracted rematches happening that I didn’t particularly want to see. The only one that jumps out is Wilder/Fury 3. It’s not a bad fight and I’ll stay pay for it but I’d have still rather had Fury/AJ as most of us would. I just wish they’d sorted more quickly than 20 months.

Are there others that jump out?

The recent ones that spring to mind. Yarde/Arthur 2 I’m fine with it (although wish it had happened quicker), Warrington/Lara 2 I was really looking forward to and I had no issue with the Whyte/Povetkin rematch (until Povetkin got Covid that is).

Posted: **02 Oct 2021, 05:22**

bigjack wrote: ↑02 Oct 2021, 05:03 Campbell Hatton should give Martinez an immediate rematch.Only just watched the fight from last weekend,jesus that was criminal.

Yep - awful decision. I reckon it’ll happen on the Manchester show in December. At least that will be one rematch we want to see instead of the Parker/Chisora main event.

Posted: **02 Oct 2021, 05:28**

garethhop wrote: ↑01 Oct 2021, 09:27
maverick23 wrote: ↑01 Oct 2021, 09:13
garethhop wrote: ↑01 Oct 2021, 08:59 Just watching a Wallin interview for his fight with Whyte.

They've got a rematch clause.

What a fornicating joke all this is. Go on Wallin lad.
Wallin didn’t have to sign the deal. If he was dead set against it then he could have took another fight or taken less money for this one.

Now he’ll be well paid for the Whyte fight and will likely be very paid in the rematch in case he beats Whyte.
And of course as a fan, that's exactly what you'll want if Wallin beats Whyte. A rematch. No, of course it isn't. You'd want Whyte to get back in line and Wallin to get a chance to fight up.

Full on DAZN/Hearn mouthpiece you are pal.

Yeh.. it’s not a world title fight it is?

Also, like they said to Usyk. He has to beat AJ twice to actually win the belt.

He’s done it once, he’s gotta do it again now and the belts are his.

Non world title fights just don’t need rematch clauses.

Same with the Pov fight. He beat Whyte, becomes mandatory.. but he isn’t mandatory until he beats him again.

Only works one way.

Then rematch clause is only for the home/favourite fighters.

Posted: **02 Oct 2021, 05:29**

maverick23 wrote: ↑02 Oct 2021, 05:22
bigjack wrote: ↑02 Oct 2021, 05:03 Campbell Hatton should give Martinez an immediate rematch.Only just watched the fight from last weekend,jesus that was criminal.
Yep - awful decision. I reckon it’ll happen on the Manchester show in December. At least that will be one rematch we want to see instead of the Parker/Chisora main event.

It will be chief support. Yes, that's what has happened to us. Before Del v Parker... I'm hardcore, but even that doesn't sink in.

Posted: **02 Oct 2021, 05:31**

mickey1975 wrote: ↑02 Oct 2021, 05:29
maverick23 wrote: ↑02 Oct 2021, 05:22
bigjack wrote: ↑02 Oct 2021, 05:03 Campbell Hatton should give Martinez an immediate rematch.Only just watched the fight from last weekend,jesus that was criminal.
Yep - awful decision. I reckon it’ll happen on the Manchester show in December. At least that will be one rematch we want to see instead of the Parker/Chisora main event.
It will be chief support. Yes, that's what has happened to us. Before Del v Parker... I'm hardcore, but even that doesn't sink in.

This is funny. Parker and Del didn’t even have a rematch clause and was a fair decision.. but they’re doing it again.. why?

Money!

Posted: **02 Oct 2021, 05:41**

Ruthless-RKO wrote: ↑02 Oct 2021, 05:28
garethhop wrote: ↑01 Oct 2021, 09:27
maverick23 wrote: ↑01 Oct 2021, 09:13

Wallin didn’t have to sign the deal. If he was dead set against it then he could have took another fight or taken less money for this one.

Now he’ll be well paid for the Whyte fight and will likely be very paid in the rematch in case he beats Whyte.
And of course as a fan, that's exactly what you'll want if Wallin beats Whyte. A rematch. No, of course it isn't. You'd want Whyte to get back in line and Wallin to get a chance to fight up.

Full on DAZN/Hearn mouthpiece you are pal.
Yeh.. it’s not a world title fight it is?

Also, like they said to Usyk. He has to beat AJ twice to actually win the belt.

He’s done it once, he’s gotta do it again now and the belts are his.

Non world title fights just don’t need rematch clauses.

Same with the Pov fight. He beat Whyte, becomes mandatory.. but he isn’t mandatory until he beats him again.

Only works one way.

Then rematch clause is only for the home/favourite fighters.

The rematch clauses are for the one that bring the bulk of the commercial value to the fight.

Usyk didn’t have to accept a rematch clause. He was number 1 contender so could have easily requested they go to purse bids where he would have likely received a lower purse. He signed a deal knowing he’d be paid well and he’d be, I’m assuming, be paid extremely well for the rematch. He didn’t seem disappointed about having to fight and likely beat AJ again did he?

Posted: **02 Oct 2021, 05:44**

mickey1975 wrote: ↑02 Oct 2021, 05:29
maverick23 wrote: ↑02 Oct 2021, 05:22
bigjack wrote: ↑02 Oct 2021, 05:03 Campbell Hatton should give Martinez an immediate rematch.Only just watched the fight from last weekend,jesus that was criminal.
Yep - awful decision. I reckon it’ll happen on the Manchester show in December. At least that will be one rematch we want to see instead of the Parker/Chisora main event.
It will be chief support. Yes, that's what has happened to us. Before Del v Parker... I'm hardcore, but even that doesn't sink in.

If it’s chief support then even as a paying DAZN customer I’m not watching!

I think they’ll have learnt their lesson from having it so high up the bill at Spurs - will be on at about 7.30pm with 3 or 4 fights after it.

Posted: **02 Oct 2021, 06:13**

I don't think you can be truly called a two-time heavyweight champion if you win an immediate rematch, its as if you never lost it in the first place. Two time should be reserved for either winning a different version of the title or coming back and working your way back into contention.

If AJ wins the rematch and then claims to be a 3 time champion it just seems hollow to me.

AJ/Hearn clearly won't fight anyone without a rematch clause, voluntary or mandatory, and as they hold all of the cards they will always get their way. Hearn ridiculed Fury for signing a rematch clause against Wlad when he was mandatory yet Hearn insists on it in AJ's contracts. If Usyk didn't agree to a rematch then I'm sure AJ would have binned the belt.

Posted: **02 Oct 2021, 06:30**

dbf wrote: ↑02 Oct 2021, 06:13 I don't think you can be truly called a two-time heavyweight champion if you win an immediate rematch, its as if you never lost it in the first place. Two time should be reserved for either winning a different version of the title or coming back and working your way back into contention.

If AJ wins the rematch and then claims to be a 3 time champion it just seems hollow to me.

AJ/Hearn clearly won't fight anyone without a rematch clause, voluntary or mandatory, and as they hold all of the cards they will always get their way. Hearn ridiculed Fury for signing a rematch clause against Wlad when he was mandatory yet Hearn insists on it in AJ's contracts. If Usyk didn't agree to a rematch then I'm sure AJ would have binned the belt.

So based on your rules would that make Ali a 2 time champ instead of 3 time champ because he fought and beat Spinks in an immediate rematch? He also had an immediate rematch against Norton after his second loss too.

No way AJ bins the belt if Usyk chooses purse bids - he’s been saying for years that he wants all 4 and to be undisputed.

Posted: **02 Oct 2021, 07:13**

maverick23 wrote: ↑02 Oct 2021, 05:22
bigjack wrote: ↑02 Oct 2021, 05:03 Campbell Hatton should give Martinez an immediate rematch.Only just watched the fight from last weekend,jesus that was criminal.
Yep - awful decision. I reckon it’ll happen on the Manchester show in December. At least that will be one rematch we want to see instead of the Parker/Chisora main event.

True,Parker v Chisora bores me already

Posted: **02 Oct 2021, 07:26**

bigjack wrote: ↑02 Oct 2021, 07:13
maverick23 wrote: ↑02 Oct 2021, 05:22
bigjack wrote: ↑02 Oct 2021, 05:03 Campbell Hatton should give Martinez an immediate rematch.Only just watched the fight from last weekend,jesus that was criminal.
Yep - awful decision. I reckon it’ll happen on the Manchester show in December. At least that will be one rematch we want to see instead of the Parker/Chisora main event.
True,Parker v Chisora bores me already

Same. God knows why Eddie seems to have a hard on for it.

Posted: **02 Oct 2021, 07:28**

dbf wrote: ↑02 Oct 2021, 06:13 I don't think you can be truly called a two-time heavyweight champion if you win an immediate rematch, its as if you never lost it in the first place. Two time should be reserved for either winning a different version of the title or coming back and working your way back into contention.

If AJ wins the rematch and then claims to be a 3 time champion it just seems hollow to me.

AJ/Hearn clearly won't fight anyone without a rematch clause, voluntary or mandatory, and as they hold all of the cards they will always get their way. Hearn ridiculed Fury for signing a rematch clause against Wlad when he was mandatory yet Hearn insists on it in AJ's contracts. If Usyk didn't agree to a rematch then I'm sure AJ would have binned the belt.

Who cares how many times a champ you are. thats not a real achievement, its a dumb consolation stat you get when you lose.... is it better to win a belt, then lose it, then win it, then lose it, then win it, then lose it. or better to win it and defend it 5 times....

Posted: **02 Oct 2021, 20:57**

Its absolute bollocks that Whyte has rematch clauses....it just smacks of Eddie having no faith. Eddie says all the major promoters do it...well

1....Whyte vs Wallin would not be considered a major fight in the states.

2...A bigger fight was Ruiz vs Arreola.....was there a rematch clause there

Posted: **03 Oct 2021, 02:57**

Yes. AJ has had those belts held hostage in one way or another for 4 years now, if he wasn't a cash cow he'd have been stripped of at least one by now. Fury was stripped of the IBF within a few days, as he had a rematch clause Vs Wlad. He should have to rebuild with 2 or 3 fights, before being allowed another title shot. Especially as it wasn't a close fight.

There's so many decent prospects out there, let other people have a chance.

Posted: **03 Oct 2021, 03:34**

Never understood the reason for Fury/Wilder signing a rematch clause after the 1st fight

Posted: **03 Oct 2021, 03:37**

handsofstone wrote: ↑03 Oct 2021, 03:34 Never understood the reason for Fury/Wilder signing a rematch clause after the 1st fight

Was the 2nd one caused by a rematch clause?

Posted: **03 Oct 2021, 04:08**

DrDuke wrote: ↑03 Oct 2021, 03:37
handsofstone wrote: ↑03 Oct 2021, 03:34 Never understood the reason for Fury/Wilder signing a rematch clause after the 1st fight
Was the 2nd one caused by a rematch clause?

Don't think so or they wouldn't have been tied into 3rd fight?

BoxRec

Should rematch clauses be banned by the board and world governing bodies?

Re: Should rematch clauses be banned by the board and world governing bodies?

Re: Should rematch clauses be banned by the board and world governing bodies?

Re: Should rematch clauses be banned by the board and world governing bodies?

Re: Should rematch clauses be banned by the board and world governing bodies?

Re: Should rematch clauses be banned by the board and world governing bodies?

Re: Should rematch clauses be banned by the board and world governing bodies?

Re: Should rematch clauses be banned by the board and world governing bodies?

Re: Should rematch clauses be banned by the board and world governing bodies?

Re: Should rematch clauses be banned by the board and world governing bodies?

Re: Should rematch clauses be banned by the board and world governing bodies?

Re: Should rematch clauses be banned by the board and world governing bodies?

Re: Should rematch clauses be banned by the board and world governing bodies?

Re: Should rematch clauses be banned by the board and world governing bodies?

Re: Should rematch clauses be banned by the board and world governing bodies?

Re: Should rematch clauses be banned by the board and world governing bodies?

Re: Should rematch clauses be banned by the board and world governing bodies?

Re: Should rematch clauses be banned by the board and world governing bodies?

Re: Should rematch clauses be banned by the board and world governing bodies?

Re: Should rematch clauses be banned by the board and world governing bodies?

Re: Should rematch clauses be banned by the board and world governing bodies?

Re: Should rematch clauses be banned by the board and world governing bodies?

Re: Should rematch clauses be banned by the board and world governing bodies?

Re: Should rematch clauses be banned by the board and world governing bodies?

Re: Should rematch clauses be banned by the board and world governing bodies?

Re: Should rematch clauses be banned by the board and world governing bodies?